Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
RE: You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft
From: MHawkins () TULLIB COM
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2003 09:00:42 -0500
You know, the more I think about this, and the more I read, I agree with the use of the term monoculture. Because Microsoft is not a monopoly. And I copy a brief exchange that came up on the "I'm feeling lucky google button" for "meaning of the word monopoly". Evidently, people know think that a monopoly means "I have to use a product because everybody else uses it". Sorry, that comes nowhere near the true meaning of the word. Read on... http://www.control.com/994793842/index_html Here is the text. Re: MS 'Monopoly'? was ENGR WinNT Reliability Jul 10, 2001 3:37 pm, by Ralph Mackiewicz Text :
Please refer to zdnet.com for information regarding the US appeals court decision. MS does, in point of fact and law, maintain a monopoly in the desktop operating systems market. Furthermore, MS has, in point of fact and law, violated section 2 of the Sherman Anti-trust law. You can say and believe what you want, but the facts are evident as attested to in mind-numbing and sleep inducing detail by the courts.
Just because a bunch of congressman and senators in the early part of the twentieth century misused the word monopoly when they wrote the Sherman Anti-trust law doesn't change the meaning of the word. What the federal judiciary has been doing regarding MS is ruling on a point of law, not on a definition. They said MS had a "monopoly" on desktop o/s **AS DEFINED BY THE SHERMAN ANTI-TRUST LAW**. There is a reason why legal and medical terms are sometimes defined by latin names: so the legal/medical meaning doesn't get confused with the real definition in popular usage. Too bad they didn't do that with Sherman. You can say that Microsoft is the dominant supplier of desktop O/S but they don't have a monopoly on anything other than Windows.
Laws exist to prevent monopolies, not protect them.... And, as stated above and by the courts, this one does exist.
Laws do not prevent monopolies. Laws create them. Try to setup a company to distribute electricity to residential customers and you will soon enough discover how the law is used to enforce a monopoly. Then to compare, start a company to market graphical user interface operating systems in competition with MS. You may have some trouble getting investors but you won't get arrested for it. The last I heard Linus Torvalds is still a free man.
I would also question the accuracy of your "hundreds of choices" reference.
OK. I exaggerated a little. The RTOS buyers guide lists 33 O/Ses in their listing. That doesn't even include MS, Linux, and the Unix variations. So there are over 30 operating systems available not hundreds. Sorry.
In closing, neither you nor I are a lawyer, but the judges are. You may not like what they said, but MS does fit the legal definition of a monopoly, and has fulfilled the legal definition of violation of US Anti-Trust law. Therefore, by definition, they are a monopoly.
I may not be a lawyer but I do know the difference between a legal opinion (MS is a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Anti-trust Act) and the incorrect assertion that there are no choices because MS has a monopoly on operating systems. Curt W. is proof enough of how this latter assertion is incorrect: he is building systems that don't have MS in it. Regards, Ralph Mackiewicz -----Original Message----- From: Bill Royds [mailto:broyds () rogers com] Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2003 11:54 PM To: 'George Capehart'; Hawkins, Michael; mjr () ranum com; breno () gamebox net Cc: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com Subject: RE: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft The term that should be used instead of monoculture is monopoly. That is the best word to describe Microsoft desktop software and it was even proved to be so in a court of law in the U.S. Monopolies are not always bad. AT&T once had a monopoly on the U.S. phone market which was accepted for various reasons. But it also had to report closely to government to ensure that it was not trampling over too many others. There were still some small competition to ATT&T like in various places like Rochester Telephone in Rochester N.Y.. But a monopoly is the state when market share is so dominant that there are areas where it is the sole player and they make up more than 50% of the market. The break-up of ATT&T has given us the Baby Bells like Verizon, SBC and BellSouth that are still near monopolies in their marketplace, but it has increased the innovation in the telecommunications market. Funny enough Apache is almost a monopoly player in the web server market and Microsoft is the competitor breaking the monopoly up. -----Original Message----- From: firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com [mailto:firewall-wizards-admin () honor icsalabs com] On Behalf Of George Capehart Sent: December 17, 2003 5:24 PM To: MHawkins () TULLIB COM; mjr () ranum com; breno () gamebox net Cc: firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com Subject: Re: [fw-wiz] You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft On Tuesday 16 December 2003 10:15 pm, MHawkins () TULLIB COM wrote:
What do you call a monolithic representation of a predominantly identical membership within a group?
You know, I've been staring at this sentence for a while now. I recognize *all* of the words, but when I try to parse that sentence my parser blows up . . . is this a troll? /g -- George Capehart capegeo at opengroup dot org PGP Key ID: 0x63F0F642 available on most public key servers "It is always possible to agglutenate multiple separate problems into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases this is a bad idea." -- RFC 1925 _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards _______________________________________________ firewall-wizards mailing list firewall-wizards () honor icsalabs com http://honor.icsalabs.com/mailman/listinfo/firewall-wizards
Current thread:
- RE: You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft MHawkins (Dec 17)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: You'll never get fired for recommending IBM - sorry - Microsoft MHawkins (Dec 19)